Why men with a low-risk prostate cancer select and stay on active surveillance: A qualitative study


Autoři: Aaron T. Seaman aff001;  Kathryn L. Taylor aff002;  Kimberly Davis aff002;  Kenneth G. Nepple aff003;  John H. Lynch aff005;  Anthony D. Oberle aff003;  Ingrid J. Hall aff007;  Robert J. Volk aff008;  Heather Schacht Reisinger aff001;  Richard M. Hoffman aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, United States of America aff001;  Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States of America aff002;  Department of Urology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, United States of America aff003;  Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States of America aff004;  Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States of America aff005;  Prostate Cancer Center, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States of America aff006;  Epidemiology and Applied Research Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States of America aff007;  Department of Health Services Research, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America aff008
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225134

Souhrn

Objective

Active surveillance (AS) is an increasingly utilized strategy for monitoring men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) that allows them to defer active treatment (AT) in the absence of cancer progression. Studies have explored reasons for selecting AS and for then switching to AT, but less is known about men’s experiences being on AS. We interviewed men to determine the clinical and psychological factors associated with selecting and adhering to AS protocols.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with men with a low-risk PCa at two academic medical centers. Subjects had either been on AS for ≥ 1 year or had opted for AT after a period of AS. We used an iterative, content-driven approach to analyze the interviews and to identify themes.

Results

We enrolled 21 subjects, mean age 70.4 years, 3 racial/ethnic minorities, and 16 still on AS. Men recognized the favorable prognosis of their cancer (some had sought second opinions when initially offered AT), valued avoiding treatment complications, were reassured that close monitoring would identify progression early enough to be successfully treated, and trusted their urologists. Although men reported feeling anxious around the time of surveillance testing, those who switched to AT did so based only on evidence of cancer progression.

Conclusions

Our selected sample was comfortable being on AS because they understood and valued the rationale for this approach. However, this highlights the importance of ensuring that men newly diagnosed with a low-risk PCa are provided sufficient information about prognosis and treatment options to make informed decisions.

Klíčová slova:

Anxiety – Biopsy – Cancer treatment – Decision making – Magnetic resonance imaging – Prognosis – Prostate cancer – Urology


Zdroje

1. Noone AM, Howlader N, Krapcho M, Miller D, Brest A, Yu M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2015. 2018 [cited 2019 February 18]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2015/.

2. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(7):1117–23. Epub 2010/02/04. JCO.2009.26.0133 [pii] doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.0133 20124165; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2834465.

3. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Wever E, Gulati R, et al. Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(6):374–83. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp001 19276453; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2720697.

4. Chou R, Croswell JM, Dana T, Bougatsos C, Blazina I, Fu R, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(11):762–71. Epub 2011/10/11. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00375 21984740.

5. Hall IJ, Richardson LC. Commentary on the State-of-the-Science Conference on the role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012;2012(45):135–9. Epub 2012/12/29. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgs040 23271762; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3540865.

6. Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W, Col NF, Corso PS, Dodson E, et al. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(8):591–5. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-8-201204170-00401 22351514; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4774889.

7. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines Version 1.2018. Prostate Cancer 2018 [February 20, 2018]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf.

8. Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, Chen RC, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J, et al. Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: Recommended Approaches and Details of Specific Care Options. J Urol. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.01.002 29331546.

9. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Trends in Management for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer, 1990–2013. JAMA. 2015;314(1):80–2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.6036 26151271.

10. Weiner AB, Patel SG, Etzioni R, Eggener SE. National trends in the management of low and intermediate risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Urol. 2015;193(1):95–102. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.111 25106900.

11. Womble PR, Montie JE, Ye Z, Linsell SM, Lane BR, Miller DC, et al. Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer. European urology. 2015;67(1):44–50. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.024 25159890.

12. Ritch CR, Graves AJ, Keegan KA, Ni S, Bassett JC, Chang SS, et al. Increasing use of observation among men at low risk for prostate cancer mortality. J Urol. 2015;193(3):801–6. Epub 2014/09/10. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.08.102 25196658; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4363002.

13. Loeb S, Curnyn C, Fagerlin A, Braithwaite RS, Schwartz MD, Lepor H, et al. Qualitative study on decision-making by prostate cancer physicians during active surveillance. BJU Int. 2016. doi: 10.1111/bju.13651 27611479.

14. Kelly SP, Van Den Eeden SK, Hoffman RM, Aaronson DS, Lobo T, Luta G, et al. Sociodemographic and Clinical Predictors of Switching to Active Treatment among a Large, Ethnically Diverse Cohort of Men with Low Risk Prostate Cancer on Observational Management. J Urol. 2016;196(3):734–40. Epub 2016/04/20. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.04.045 27091570; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5094279.

15. Simpkin AJ, Tilling K, Martin RM, Lane JA, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Factors Determining Change to Radical Treatment in Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer. European urology. 2015;67(6):993–1005. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.004 25616709.

16. Berger ZD, Yeh JC, Carter HB, Pollack CE. Characteristics and experiences of patients with localized prostate cancer who left an active surveillance program. The patient. 2014;7(4):427–36. Epub 2014/06/13. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0066-z 24920082; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4332784.

17. Davison BJ, Oliffe JL, Pickles T, Mroz L. Factors influencing men undertaking active surveillance for the management of low-risk prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2009;36(1):89–96. Epub 2009/01/13. doi: 10.1188/09.ONF.89-96 19136342.

18. Kazer MW, Bailey DE Jr, Colberg J, Kelly WK, Carroll P. The needs for men undergoing active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer: results of a focus group study. Journal of clinical nursing. 2011;20(3–4):581–6. Epub 2011/01/12. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03489.x 21219530.

19. Mader EM, Li HH, Lyons KD, Morley CP, Formica MK, Perrapato SD, et al. Qualitative insights into how men with low-risk prostate cancer choosing active surveillance negotiate stress and uncertainty. BMC Urology. 2017;17(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12894-016-0192-0 28056941

20. O'Callaghan C, Dryden T, Hyatt A, Brooker J, Burney S, Wootten AC, et al. 'What is this active surveillance thing?' Men's and partners' reactions to treatment decision making for prostate cancer when active surveillance is the recommended treatment option. Psycho-oncology. 2014;23(12):1391–8. doi: 10.1002/pon.3576 24830805.

21. Oliffe LJ, Davison JB, Pickles T, Mróz L. The self-management of uncertainty among men undertaking active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Qualitative health research. 2009;19(4):432–43. doi: 10.1177/1049732309332692 19229061

22. Mallapareddi A, Ruterbusch J, Reamer E, Eggly S, Xu J. Active surveillance for low-risk localized prostate cancer: what do men and their partners think? Family practice. 2017;34(1):90–7. Epub 2016/12/31. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmw123 28034917.

23. Volk RJ, McFall SL, Cantor SB, Byrd TL, Le YC, Kuban DA, et al. 'It's not like you just had a heart attack': decision-making about active surveillance by men with localized prostate cancer. Psycho-oncology. 2014;23(4):467–72. Epub 2013/11/19. doi: 10.1002/pon.3444 24243777; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3983844.

24. Xu J, Neale AV, Dailey RK, Eggly S, Schwartz KL. Patient perspective on watchful waiting/active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25(6):763–70. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2012.06.120128 23136314; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4212643.

25. Bernard HR. Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press; 2006.

26. Taylor KL, Hoffman RM, Davis KM, Luta G, Leimpeter A, Lobo T, et al. Treatment Preferences for Active Surveillance versus Active Treatment among Men with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25(8):1240–50. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-1079 27257092; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4970911.

27. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Huberman MA, Huberman M. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 1994.

28. Gorin MA, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, Soloway MS. Factors that influence patient enrollment in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2011;77(3):588–91. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.10.039 21215429.

29. Scherr KA, Fagerlin A, Hofer T, Scherer LD, Holmes-Rovner M, Williamson LD, et al. Physician Recommendations Trump Patient Preferences in Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(1):56–69. doi: 10.1177/0272989X16662841 27510740.

30. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Decision memo for Screening for Lung Cancer with Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT)(CAG-00439N) 2015 [cited 2016 May 24]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=274.

31. Davison BJ, Breckon E. Factors influencing treatment decision making and information preferences of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;87(3):369–74. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.11.009 22177658.

32. Anandadas CN, Clarke NW, Davidson SE, O'Reilly PH, Logue JP, Gilmore L, et al. Early prostate cancer—which treatment do men prefer and why? BJU Int. 2011;107(11):1762–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09833.x 21083643.

33. Bellardita L, Valdagni R, van den Bergh R, Randsdorp H, Repetto C, Venderbos LD, et al. How does active surveillance for prostate cancer affect quality of life? A systematic review. European urology. 2015;67(4):637–45. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.028 25454617.

34. Carter G, Clover K, Britton B, Mitchell AJ, White M, McLeod N, et al. Wellbeing during Active Surveillance for localised prostate cancer: a systematic review of psychological morbidity and quality of life. Cancer treatment reviews. 2015;41(1):46–60. Epub 2014/12/04. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2014.11.001 25467109.

35. Marzouk M, Ouanes-Besbes L, Ouanes I, Hammouda Z, Dachraoui F, Abroug F. Prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms among medical residents in Tunisia: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2018;8(7):e020655. Epub 2018/07/25. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020655 30037867; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6059333.

36. van den Bergh RC, Essink-Bot ML, Roobol MJ, Schroder FH, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW. Do anxiety and distress increase during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer? J Urol. 2010;183(5):1786–91. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.099 20299064.

37. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Walsh E, et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1425–37. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606221 27626365; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5134995.

38. Venderbos LDF, Aluwini S, Roobol MJ, Bokhorst LP, Oomens E, Bangma CH, et al. Long-term follow-up after active surveillance or curative treatment: quality-of-life outcomes of men with low-risk prostate cancer. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(6):1635–45. Epub 2017/02/09. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1507-7 28168601; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5420369.

39. Punnen S, Cowan JE, Chan JM, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR. Long-term Health-related Quality of Life After Primary Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer: Results from the CaPSURE Registry. European urology. 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.074 25242555.

40. Matheson L, Wilding S, Wagland R, Nayoan J, Rivas C, Downing A, et al. The psychological impact of being on a monitoring pathway for localised prostate cancer: A UK-wide mixed methods study. Psycho-oncology. 2019;28(7):1567–75. Epub 2019/05/28. doi: 10.1002/pon.5133 31132801.

41. Latini DM, Hart SL, Knight SJ, Cowan JE, Ross PL, Duchane J, et al. The relationship between anxiety and time to treatment for patients with prostate cancer on surveillance. J Urol. 2007;178(3 Pt 1):826–31; discussion 31–2. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.039 17632144.

42. Ruane-McAteer E, Porter S, O'Sullivan J, Dempster M, Prue G. Investigating the psychological impact of active surveillance or active treatment in newly diagnosed favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: A 9-month longitudinal study. Psycho-oncology. 2019;28(8):1743–52. Epub 2019/06/28. doi: 10.1002/pon.5161 31243872.

43. Loeb S, Walter D, Curnyn C, Gold HT, Lepor H, Makarov DV. How Active is Active Surveillance? Intensity of Followup during Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in the United States. J Urol. 2016;196(3):721–6. Epub 2016/03/08. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.2963 26946161; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5010531.

44. Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5 28402085.

45. Legare F, Witteman HO. Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2):276–84. Epub 2013/02/06. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1078 23381520.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11